Um artigo muito interessante sobre a importância de se investir a sério no fundraising.
Foi escrito há quase um ano atrás por Dan Pallotta, presidente do Advertising for Humanity O artigo foi publicado no blog da Harvard Business Review
...
Donors love to hear how little a humanitarian organization spends on fundraising, and humanitarian organizations love to tell donors what they love to hear.
That's utterly misguided — unethical, even.
The less an organization invests in fundraising the less it can grow. The less it can grow the more human suffering persists. We have institutionalized a mechanism for insuring the persistence of human suffering and called it "charity."
Here are what some of our favorite charities spend on fundraising, according to their own figures:
American Heart Association, 2009: $111 million, or 16.2% of expenses
Komen for the Cure, 2008/2009: $23 million, or 8% of expenses
American Cancer Society, 2008: $53 million, or 11% of expenses
Juvenile Diabetes Association, 2009: $20 million, or 11% of expenses
By contrast, what does Apple spend on fundraising? A decent proxy is its SG&A (Selling, General and Administrative Expenses), which is about 11% of revenues.
So what's the problem? The charities above seem to be in line with the second highest market cap company in America. That's as a percentage. If we look at it in dollars, it's a completely different picture.
Apple will do about $60 billion in revenues this year. That's about 40 times the combined revenues of the four organizations listed above. 11% of that is almost $7 billion. That's 35 times more than the combined fundraising spending of the four organizations above. It's nearly 70 times what the American Heart Association will spend. It's about 300 times what either Juvenile Diabetes or Komen for the Cure will spend. And these are the largest charities in their fields.
But stop...
Leia aqui o resto do artigo
Foi escrito há quase um ano atrás por Dan Pallotta, presidente do Advertising for Humanity O artigo foi publicado no blog da Harvard Business Review
...
Donors love to hear how little a humanitarian organization spends on fundraising, and humanitarian organizations love to tell donors what they love to hear.
That's utterly misguided — unethical, even.
The less an organization invests in fundraising the less it can grow. The less it can grow the more human suffering persists. We have institutionalized a mechanism for insuring the persistence of human suffering and called it "charity."
Here are what some of our favorite charities spend on fundraising, according to their own figures:
American Heart Association, 2009: $111 million, or 16.2% of expenses
Komen for the Cure, 2008/2009: $23 million, or 8% of expenses
American Cancer Society, 2008: $53 million, or 11% of expenses
Juvenile Diabetes Association, 2009: $20 million, or 11% of expenses
By contrast, what does Apple spend on fundraising? A decent proxy is its SG&A (Selling, General and Administrative Expenses), which is about 11% of revenues.
So what's the problem? The charities above seem to be in line with the second highest market cap company in America. That's as a percentage. If we look at it in dollars, it's a completely different picture.
Apple will do about $60 billion in revenues this year. That's about 40 times the combined revenues of the four organizations listed above. 11% of that is almost $7 billion. That's 35 times more than the combined fundraising spending of the four organizations above. It's nearly 70 times what the American Heart Association will spend. It's about 300 times what either Juvenile Diabetes or Komen for the Cure will spend. And these are the largest charities in their fields.
But stop...
Leia aqui o resto do artigo
Comentários